Feds Target Calfornia Marijuana Dispensaries

The Department of Justice has sent a threatening letter to marijuana dispensaries in California. The Associated Press has obtained the letter and reports:

Federal prosecutors have launched a crackdown on pot dispensaries in California, warning the stores that they must shut down in 45 days or face criminal charges and confiscation of their property even if they are operating legally under the state's 15-year-old medical marijuana law.

There will be a press conference tomorrow at which California U.S. Attorneys announce the new crackdown. At least 16 dispensaries and landlords got the letter which says they are violating federal drug laws, regardless of whether they are in compliance with California law. [More...]

The threat:

[The letters] state that federal law "takes precedence over state law and applies regardless of the particular uses for which a dispensary is selling and distributing marijuana."

"Under United States law, a dispensary's operations involving sales and distribution of marijuana are illegal and subject to criminal prosecution and civil enforcement actions," letters signed by U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy in San Diego read. "Real and personal property involved in such operations are subject to seizure by and forfeiture to the United States ... regardless of the purported purpose of the dispensary."

In June, DOJ issued a new memo to prosecutors informing them that dispensaries and licensed growers could be charged with drug crimes and money laundering.

In a letter sent to the landlord of a dispensary that has been operating for 14 years, DOJ threatened to seek a penalty enhancement for selling drugs within 1,000 feet of schools, parks and playgrounds.

The landlord was ordered to evict the pot club or risk imprisonment, plus forfeiture of the property and all the rent he has collected while the dispensary has been in business, Anton said.

From the June memo:
The Ogden Memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law. Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law. Consistent with resource constraints and the discretion you may exercise in your district, such persons are subject to federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution.

State laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil or criminal enforcement of federal law with respect to such conduct, including enforcement of the CSA. Those who engage in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity may also be in violation of federal money laundering statutes and other federal financial laws

< Osama's Wives Granted Permission to Leave Pakistan, Travel Freely | Obama and Holder Then and Now on Medical Marijuana >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Seriously?!?! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by iceblinkjm on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:21:55 PM EST
    Wow. Yet another campaign promise broken. I guess I really will be staying home in 2012.

    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:34:32 PM EST
    "couldn't" express an opinion about the Troy Davis case because it was a State issue.

    But when it comes to someone being able to smoke a joint in California....

    great point, I may (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:54:20 PM EST
    steal that!

    That doesn't follow (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by seabe on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 06:42:27 PM EST
    Even though this is a dumb decision and I oppose it, the logic simply doesn't follow. The Troy Davis case involved state law, strictly. California law is in violation of federal law.

    So... (none / 0) (#13)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 06:55:45 PM EST
    how about challenging it in the Supreme Court?

    This is pure grandstanding by Obama.


    I don't know of any legitimate challenge (none / 0) (#16)
    by Peter G on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 07:39:22 PM EST
    Federal law trumps inconsistent state law under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. The federal prohibition on "marihuana," while stupid, is a valid exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause, as long interpreted by the Supreme Court. It was specifically upheld fairly recently in Gonzales v. Raich.  This is a policy matter, not a legal matter.

    Note well which Justices voted against (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 09:32:59 PM EST
    the individual medical marijuana grower, i.e., in support of the 1970 Nixon/Hoover (CSA) Act.  With the exception of Scalia, they were all center/left.

    The next time you hear someone trumpet the virtues of electing a Democratic president so he'll keep the court liberal on the premise that Roe v. Wade is of transcendent importance, remember this.


    Hmm, so the scientific fact... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Dadler on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 07:57:07 PM EST
    ...that marijuana cannot possibly be placed beside heroin and cocaine, for instance (but that alcohol easily could), for addictive properties alone, bears no weight?  

    Good to know.  


    (But we all know it's really about simple bribery anyway, since the alcohol industry greases many political palms and livers.)



    No, not in court it doesn't (none / 0) (#32)
    by Peter G on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 09:59:04 AM EST
    Courts are there to adjudicate legal disputes.  Agencies and legislatures make policy decisions.  The misclassification of marijuana is a bad policy decision, not a legal error.

    Obama is so popular across the country (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:42:24 PM EST
    he doesn't need California voters. Oh, wait.

    He sure likes to come here for (none / 0) (#10)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 06:38:35 PM EST
    the campaign cash . . . .

    Well the high rollers only (none / 0) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 06:50:27 PM EST
    get one vote come November 2012. Their votes can be nullified by the people who lose their jobs by putting the Medical Marijuana dispensaries out of business or have their jobs eliminated because of the loss of local and State revenue due to this decision.

    I was probably one of the few people who do not personally support Obama who thought that Obama was going to be reelected. Now I'm beginning to wonder if he wants another term based on some of the decisions he makes that are bound to lose him votes.  


    digby on effect of decision (none / 0) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 07:44:34 PM EST
    That ought to please even the most ignorant culture warrior while angering virtually every liberal and libertarian in the state. I wonder how many social conservatives with vote for the president's re-election because of it? link

    Makes sense... (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:42:44 PM EST
    bust the pot store's b*lls, give away guns to gangsters.

    How's the case against Goldman, JP, BoA, Citi coming along Holder?  Oh yeah, that's hard.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#28)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 08:28:01 AM EST
    If there was a way to pull off a subtle shift of profits from marijuana sales to those who are so afraid of that plant becoming "legal" it would happen in an instant. We all know it isn't about our health, safety, or behavior. There's too much money involved for this topic to move into what's best for the 99%.

    The idiocy of this administration continues (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Dadler on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:46:31 PM EST
    Never were gonna get my vote again anyway.  Now?  I wouldn't even p*ss on them if their hearts were on fire.  Luckily, they have neither hearts nor brains.

    Phucking Obama with his beer summits.  Hypocrisy worthy of the moron he is.  God I would really like to put some phlegm right in his lying face.

    Down boy, down... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:50:47 PM EST
    save that fire for some OSF action.

    Imagination my friend...human shields around all dispensaries?  Bearing flowers?  That would take numbers, but I see many fringe benefits for the shields.  


    I'm frankly amazed they've lasted this long. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:48:21 PM EST

    Obama and Holder never said, (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Peter G on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 07:28:25 PM EST
    and couldn't say, that state MMDs are not in blatant violation of federal law.  What they did say, and could continue to say -- but are apparently backtracking on -- is that enforcement against MMDs that function in compliance with state law (and not as a front for marijuana dealing to all comers, as some no doubt do) is such a low priority that they cannot see ever getting around to enforcement.  The federal government cannot and does not enforce all its laws all the time against everyone any fed knows is violating them.  I do not understand why that cannot or should not continue to be their position.

    My best guess: (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 07:50:53 PM EST
    these "medical" dispensaries are victims of their own success. They're late night TV jokes, and the Feds were beginning to look ineffectual.

    Does anybody really care (none / 0) (#20)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 08:03:23 PM EST
    that some people in CA are smoking pot? The place by me is so low key I didn't notice it for months.

    The Feds look ineffectual in many areas, I just can't get that anyone really cares that much about the MMD here.


    Well, no, some people are (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 08:32:14 PM EST
    smoking pot everywhere.

    the problem with CA is that, according to TV, everyone has access to pot. The ID cards are a punchline. And the FDA basically just determined that there's no merit to the claim that smoked cannabis has a medical application.

    I don't think the feds can seriously pretend that this is a minor problem.


    and the FDA is wrong (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 01:56:15 AM EST
    it's ridiculous to take that position given all the research.

    Marijuana use is not a problem, let alone a serious problem.

    Please don't spread that nonsense here.


    The FDA ? (none / 0) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 08:55:56 AM EST
    You mean the people that are so understaffed they are only inspecting 2% of our imported food, including nearly all the seafood.

    In 2010, FDA inspectors physically examined 2.06 percent of all food-related imports. The FDA expects only 1.59 percent of all food imports to be examined this year and even less -- only 1.47 percent -- next year, according to its Office of Regulatory Affairs.

    Seems like their time could be better spent inspecting food coming from China than trying to disprove what is becoming generally excepted medical benefits of marijuana.


    I don't have a huge problem with MJ, (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 09:57:45 AM EST
    but I cannot seriously entertain the proposition that it is a legitimate medical treatment when smoked.

    Vaporizors. Edibles. (none / 0) (#35)
    by kindness on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 10:05:26 AM EST
    You want to use the 'smoking is bad' card to make Medical Marijuana illegal?  You seem to be all too willing to ignore that the active ingredients can be ingested using vaporizors & edibles.

    Why are you ignoring the fact that Medical Marijuana has been shown to be effective for many different ailments?  Why do you feel it's your right to make choices for others?  You can say you aren't but the argument line you are using says otherwise.


    The FDA finds those arguments to be (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 10:10:37 AM EST
    without merit. I agree.

    I am not in favor of banning MJ, but I'm not going to throw my mind in the garbage and pretend that a cigarette is "medicine" in order to achieve legalization.

    As to vaporization and edibles: the active ingredient is available as a Schedule III prescription medicine.


    Patients say... (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 12:44:15 PM EST
    Marinol is a sh*tty substitute for the real thing, I'll take their word for it.

    You're obsessing on the smoking delivery system AG, I don't get it.  If a patient likes the fast delivery of smoking, more power to them.  Vapor is fast delivery too, though a good vaporizer can get pricey.  And these same stores the feds wanna smash sell ready made edibles...the ganja peanut butter cups are especially delicous.

    I'm with ya on medicinal use only being legalized was never the way to go, the play is to legalize outright so a medical dispensing system is not abused like our prescription system for percs and 'dins...we're all adults, there is no reason to have to play this stupid game.  


    I agree with andgarden on "delivery" (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 12:47:56 PM EST
    system of smoking mj for health reasons.  Supposed to be rougher on the lungs than reg. tobacco.  More contaminates.  No filter.  

    My friends brother... (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 01:01:37 PM EST
    who is dying of brain cancer and finds relief and the ability to eat & sleep through medical use...you tell him that cuz I ain't.

    My mother and her brother (none / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 01:09:22 PM EST
    both died of brain cancer w/in the last year or so. Med MJ? They were on morphine drips.

    That said, her brother, my uncle, had pretty bad arthritis and always said his arthritic joints felt better in the AM if he smoked some MJ in the PM before he went to sleep.

    I suppose he could have taken the pill form or via vaporizer if he really wanted to, I never thought to ask...


    My friends bro... (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 01:20:59 PM EST
    is really on his last legs, she prays for a higher power to take him at this point. Doing the home hospice thing and waiting on the inevitable.

    Just a few months ago when I helped them out in a pinch, he was still saying he was gonna beat it with enough conviction for me to believe it.  It's awful.  And to think people wanna make it harder on such patients, it really gets my goat...all obvious bias aside.


    How old is he? (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 02:01:20 PM EST
    Not sure... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 02:15:26 PM EST
    late 40's early 50's.  Youngest son is graduating high school this year, he really wanted to at least make that milestone.

    Ouch. (none / 0) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 02:26:17 PM EST
    fwiw, brain cancer often comes from lung cancer and of course there are clear links between inhaling little burned particles and getting lung cancer...

    So now you are a Physician? (none / 0) (#56)
    by kindness on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 02:29:33 PM EST
    With all due respect you are way out of line.  Maybe a little compassion would help you.

    and are a continuation of the many conversations about smoking tobacco and MJ that kdog and I have been having for, I don't know, 5? 6? 7? years now. I think we're OK with it.

    Are you going to advocate for bringing (none / 0) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 02:46:35 PM EST
    back prohibition?

    Alcohol drinking has long been known to cause cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, oesophagus, and liver (IARC Monographs Volume 44, 1988). The addition of breast cancer and colorectal cancer, two of the most common cancers worldwide, to this list indicates that the burden of cancer attributable to alcohol consumption is higher than previously thought. "The scientific evidence relating alcohol drinking to an increased risk of cancer continues to grow as does the contribution of alcohol drinking to the global cancer burden. The clear association with increased risk of breast cancer associated with even modest levels of alcohol drinking is a major concern particularly in view of the changing drinking patterns of women in many countries. link


    Seems you want to isolate one (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 03:45:48 PM EST
    element you think causes cancer while ignoring the research that indicates alcohol increases the risk of

    ...breast cancer and colorectal cancer, two of the most common cancers worldwide certain cancers

    Lung cancer ranks third behind the breast cancer and colorectal cancer and brain cancer does not make the list of the top 10 most common cancers.  

    Other non-smoking causes of brain cancer are radiation to the head, an inherited (genetic) risk, HIV infection and environmental toxins (for example, chemicals used in oil refineries, embalming chemicals, rubber industry chemicals).

    Strawman vs cherry picking?


    about brain cancer and MJ used as a medicine to help with dealing with it.

    As an aside, we talked about one of the major origins of brain cancer, which, as it happens, touched on some subjects that kdog and I have been having conversations about since, oh, 2004 or 2005 or so.

    fwiw, both my mother's and my uncle's terminal brain cancers originated as lung cancer.

    You, of course, may have any conversations you please with whomever you like. But I do hope that it's OK with you if kdog and I have conversations about what we find interesting and relevant, whether or not it's what you try to demand we/I talk about.


    Maybe if you want to confine your (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 05:29:10 PM EST
    conservations to strictly between you and kdog, you might want to use e-mail rather than a thread where everyone has the opportunity to express their opinions on the subject matter and what you write.

    I am sorry that you had family members that had terminal brain cancers that originated as lung cancer but the kdog's friend did not meet that criteria. His cancer was not caused by lung cancer or from smokng pot.

    You are the one making a demands about what others are allowed to discuss in a thread on the advisability of targeting marijuana dispensaries. Your demand is particularly ironic since the owner of the site is strongly against this action.


    I wish you all a great weekend!

    You are ridiculous (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 05:45:05 PM EST
    Non-smoker... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 02:47:41 PM EST
    until he got sick, he was actually against medical mj before his sister urged him to give it a shot...then he became a believer.

    He worked in construction, she wonders about asbestos or something like that as a cause...who knows, but there does seem to be more brain cancer popping up, scary.  Some people think the above ground power lines 'round here, cuz we have high breast cancer rates too, and I wonder  a bit about all the electronic gadgets that have become prevalent with the low level radiation they emit.


    Many brain cancers, but not all of course, (none / 0) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 03:04:59 PM EST
    originate in some other part of the body. Lung or liver or wherever. Though it's probably often not medically relevant to find the original source once someone is diagnosed with brain cancer. I would guess breathing asbestos is probably more likely to give someone lung cancer, initially anyway. Maybe there is something to the cell phones, etc., theory. Good luck to your friend and her bro's family.

    Thanks... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 03:29:17 PM EST
    I saw her (my friend) this past Sunday, poor woman is beaten down, looks like she's aged 10 years in 10 weeks.  Caring for her brother, her elderly sick mother, 3 young boys at home...too much for one person to have to bear at a given time.

    At least he was a union guy with good bennies and a savings, so his family doesn't have to sweat losing their house or the other horror stories ya hear.


    Perhaps a warning on the product (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 01:20:01 PM EST
    packaging would be sufficient.  

    Yeah, Oculus, let's defend a policy that protects (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 04:24:25 PM EST
    those already terminal - from that scourge of scourges, 20 years post-mortem lung cancer.

    They'd laugh you out of court.


    Oculus, are you really (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 04:32:11 PM EST
    going to worry about the health of the lungs of people who are dying, puking their guts out, and cannot get relief any other way?  See my reply #65 to "kindness."  My brother was dying of AIDS and nothing else helped him at the end of his life except marijuana- inhaled.  None of us worried about the state of his lungs at that point (and, yes, it was illegal back then in the state he lived in- so sue me, or call the cops).

    ...and deeper inhaling. (none / 0) (#43)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 12:55:06 PM EST
    AIDS & chemo patient throw up those pills. (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by kindness on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 12:58:25 PM EST
    My wife is a breast cancer survivor and I've been through it. Those pills are very expensive.  Inhaling works better.

    Thank you, kindness (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 04:23:15 PM EST
    My brother was one of the earlier ones who died of HIV-AIDS.  The only thing that kept him going at the end was inhaled marijuana (which his partner had to light up for him).  He was able to be comfortable, take a bit of nutrition and hydration, and not puke his guts out.  If someone is not able to ingest because of vomiting, inhalation works.  And, by inhaling, you are able to intake as much as you need, unlike the pills.  Mans inhumanity to man- I guess, never mind if this helps a whole lot of people, it's not legal because......I'm not sure, really, exactly why.  

    Well said. (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 12:28:48 PM EST
    Betting on the reliability of the FDA... (none / 0) (#48)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 01:18:10 PM EST
    ... is a sure way to go broke quickly.

    Way too many people who never smoked MM have given credence to it's benefits after the advisement of their physician.  Add in doctors who have actual contact with patients and the FDA can study molecules in 5 different dimensions on an army of rats/monkeys and conclude whatever they want.  

    Clearly too many people w/o agendas conclude what FDA scientists can't, MM is medically beneficial to many people.


    Hmmm . . . . (none / 0) (#23)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 11:48:46 PM EST
    I should try and get access just to see if TV is correct :P

    This would be minor (I refuse to call it a "problem") aside from the fact the Feds are making a big deal of it. 12% UE seems to be a bigger problem here from where I'm sitting . . . I also seem to be seeing more gun violence on the news than I did in NYC. Pot smokers tend to stay below the evening news radar . . . even the SF nudists get more airtime ;)


    The jokes on tv are quite correct (none / 0) (#24)
    by dgwohl on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 12:20:57 AM EST
    I went to the doctor for "anxiety" and received a card as soon as I gave him the check. I know of nobody who has been turned down by the doctors who specialize in this...

    Concerts (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 09:50:10 AM EST
    A friend was in LA and went to a concert he said there were 'doctors' outside the venue doing exams.

    But the thing is this law isn't going to change that, it's only going to put the dispensaries back in the black market.  Which means instead of going to the store, now they will deliver at a higher price.  California will lose much needed revenue, the Feds will spend revenue we don't have, and the users will still get what they want, just a higher cost.



    The joke is... (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 01:21:36 PM EST
    the requirement to get a stupid card in the first place.

    You Mean a Permission Slip (none / 0) (#64)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 03:51:40 PM EST
    maybe (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by cpinva on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 06:54:32 AM EST
    someone will throw a shoe at them.

    No vote from me. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 07:56:35 AM EST
    I'm done with this president and this administration. This is shameful from a so-called "progressive" president. Obama has been completely spineless in dealing with the GOP. He has not closed Gitmo and now this. To hell with him. Some real Democrat needs to stand up and challenge him for the nomination. I won't vote for any republican, but I'm not voting Obama either. I'll take a good look at third party candidates next year. Maybe I'll be going Green.

    Qui bono: Follow the money. (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 04:32:55 PM EST
    For starters:

    The drug companies.  The prison industry.  The prison guard unions.  The police unions.  The TLA (three letter agency) lobby.  The arms dealers for whom authoritarian a$$holes are their best customers.  Politicians too lazy to lead with anything but the old reliable, fear.

    "Cui bono" I swear i new howe 2 spel it. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 07:00:40 PM EST
    City attorney is moving to shut down (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:30:19 PM EST
    dispensaries also:  link

    He probably (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 06:59:28 PM EST
    relaxed with a couple of martinis that evening.

    Or maybe he's just a God-fearing gentlemen protecting the children from wickedness.



    This is one of the issues (none / 0) (#33)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 10:01:49 AM EST
    on which I disagree with Obama the most strongly.

    It makes no sense.  Obama should be ashamed of this.

    Politically stupid IMO (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 10:42:18 AM EST
    Does Obama really want to be reelected?

    How many people can he seriously p!ss off before it becomes obvious that he has shrunk his base to where it can be drowned in a bath tub? People impacted by this decision.

    o People who will lose their jobs when the dispensaries are closed. (UE in CA. 12.1% now)

    o People who will lose their businesses when the dispensaries are closed.

    o Property owners who will lose rent payments when the dispensaries are closed.

    o People who will lose their jobs due to loss of revenue at the local and state level.

    o People who will have to pay more for a product that they believe (right or not) provides them with medical relief.

    o Young (and not so young) people who believe that marijuana should be legalized. Maybe no one told Obama that

    Legalizing pot is the number one issue at the White House's We the People petition website.

    Is Obama bored with being president and ready to go on to a more lucrative position? If so, maybe it is time to give the best evah "I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president." speech.


    landlords who rent to known illegal businesses like dispensaries.

    They can if they chose (none / 0) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 12:55:01 PM EST
    to do so. I think you are probably aware that they have threaten to do so since it is mentioned in Jeralyn's post.

    They could also pursue the course that PeterG has laid out in comment #15.

    What they did say, and could continue to say -- but are apparently backtracking on -- is that enforcement against MMDs that function in compliance with state law (and not as a front for marijuana dealing to all comers, as some no doubt do) is such a low priority that they cannot see ever getting around to enforcement.

    I pointed out the number of people (potential voters) and the revenue streams this decision would negatively impact. You can ignore that this decision will have political ramifications and concentrate purely on what the feds can chose to do if you prefer.  


    span, I glanced at it and then pretty much went straight to the comments. fwiw I wasn't trying to disprove anything you wrote...

    I really don't have any skin in this game (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 01:18:51 PM EST
    Don't personally like marijuana and am not (surprise, surprise ;o)..) an Obama supporter. Just don't like stupid laws and wasting government money on enforcing them especially when it is a complete reversal of previous administration policy. I tend once again to agree with PeterG (I do love that man's mind):    

    The misclassification of marijuana is a bad policy decision...

    I also believe for the reasons stated that this is a stupid political decision.


    You Forgot One Big Point (none / 0) (#75)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 11:54:25 AM EST
    Every tax paying American that has to subsidize these adventures.

    It's Officiall, Obama's Drug Policy is Worse than (none / 0) (#34)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 10:05:18 AM EST
    ... GWB's.

    Clinton's was worse... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 04:51:26 PM EST
    than Reagan's.